User talk:JanSzary
Welcome Hi, welcome to Ologypedia! Thanks for your edit to the Chinese Lung page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Wyvern Rex. (Talk) 03:39, January 29, 2011 Thankyou for your recent edits, but I am somewhat baffled by the Ba'al known as "the Prince of Darkness". I can find no reference to him in the books, so if you have a reference (book name, page number) I would gladly accept it. If, however, the character is fan-created it will not be allowed in the article space (though you can write about the Prince anywhere else if clearly stated to be fan-created). Enjoy Ologypedia!--Wyvern Rex. 16:11, January 30, 2011 (UTC) :Nicky Raven is a member of the Templar staff and not a previous Protector as stated on some websites, so I will have to delete that page. Franz Liszt was Brooks' predecessor. As for the Prince of Darkness, it does seem likely that he is a Ba'al. However, before you can put anything on a wiki, you must ensure that it is demonstratably in the books or other source materials. I would agree that the Prince is a Ba'al but without official word from Templar I could not use the article without breaking policy. Please sign your comments (but not pages) with four of these ~.--Wyvern Rex. 09:28, January 31, 2011 (UTC) ::Good project, though it should go on a blog rather than in the mainspace. If you create a blog for it, I will highlight your idea on the front page. I'm afraid that we can't just make assumptions based on history as in the Prince of Darkness. Think of it this way: suppose I tried to write the Ologypedia Alienology articles on the Star Wars wiki. I would explain that since our galaxy exists in the same universe as the Star Wars galaxy, they can both mutually exist. Both the Star Wars films and Alienology could then be produced. I would likewise explain that since our Galaxy is not explored in Star Wars, Alienology is a very likely possibility for the alien social structure in our galaxy. Again, nothing in either Star Wars or Alienology contradicts this. But then someone else could say that Star Trek articles could go on the Star Wars wiki, for the same reason as my Alienology articles could go on although Alienology would clash with Star Trek when it comes to describing a fictionalised version of our galaxy. We don't visit the Milky Way in Star Wars in the same way as we don't see the Prince of Darkness in Vampireology. He could be a Ba'al, but then another user could claim that he was a Dark Dragonologist or a Sorceror. Because he never appeared in the Ologies, I would have to spend all my time debating equally valid claims without any evidence in the Ology series to support them. Because I have no intention of doing this and because I have a lot of Ology to write this year, I would rather not resort to tangentially-connected history books in a debate with no winners. This is why we only allow content from the Ology books.--Wyvern Rex. 12:10, February 1, 2011 (UTC) :::Blogs can be created by clicking on the word "Blog" to the right of your profile (That is, to the right of Talk Page and the left of Contributions.) and following some simple steps. I would indeed like to run your project on the wiki. :::The vampires can all be found in the book, mostly on the "Vampires in History" spread but I have gathered some references from the timeline as well.--Wyvern Rex. 18:49, February 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::I moved the "suspected" sections to the talk pages to aid discussion. Also, could you keep suspicions about vampires to those who died before 1920? Not really a canonicity thing and I agree with your ideas, but I'm not sure how much politics we would be allowed to mention on what is essentially a fantasy wiki. I don't want any trouble, that's all.--Wyvern Rex. 11:47, February 10, 2011 (UTC) RE: Supernatural I may not believe in the supernatural but, to me, that isn't the point. I am still fascinated by the supernatural, though I'm not convinced by it, and I love reading SF and fantasy books. The Ologies form a rich, coherent universe worthy of writing about regardless of external reality. I am reminded of Arthur C. Clarke, who said that even if 99.99% of something isn't true, it's still worth taking an interest in for what you can learn from the mistakes in that 99.99%. He also added that the other 0.01% is likewise worthy of study... Those are my reasons.--Wyvern Rex. 09:55, March 15, 2011 (UTC) :OK. However, as administrator of the site I am partly responsible for ensuring that the site displays a view of the books which Templar would agree to be accurate, so I will have to continue to use the term "Fantasy" to reflect their marketing strategies. (I don't want to damage my chances of getting more pre-orders by disagreeing with them.)--Wyvern Rex. 12:54, March 22, 2011 (UTC)